2017 (10) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the them under misunderstanding of the during the period 2002-03 to 2004-05 (till August 2005). After issuing show cause notices, the Adjudicating Authority, following due process of law, allowed recredit of an amount of Rs. 7,50,155/- has been filed at the time and rejected the request for an amount of Rs. 12,00,734/- as time barred under the provisions of 11B of the CEA, 1944. Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the Cenvat Credit held as within the time and recredit allowed by the Adjudicating Authority. On an appeal filed by the appellant against the OIO that rejected claim for recredit of an amount of Rs. 12,00,734/- the First Appellate Authority also found no force in the contentions raised and rejected the appeal holding th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e High Court of Allahabad in the case of Kishnav Engg Ltd - 2016(331)ELT.391 (All.) After hearing both sides the said judgment held as under: "5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the department has proceeded on the ground that the appellant had taken the Cenvat credit without any refund order or without permission from the proper authority and without filing proper documents under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004 prescribes that Cenvat credit could be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of certain documents to be filed, namely, an invoice issued by the manufacturer for clearance of inputs or capital goods, etc. Admittedly, we find that the appellant had claimed Cenvat credit ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n this aspect of a judgment of the Madras High Court in ICMC Corporation Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai, 2014 (302) E.L.T. 45, where in similar circumstances the High Court held that the provisions of Section 11B of the Act was not applicable. We find that the appellant originally availed the Cenvat credit, which was allowed but for various reasons it reversed the credit. In our view, it is only an account entry reversal and there is no out flow of funds from the side of the appellant which may result in filing an application under Section 11B of the Act for claiming refund of duty. Consequently, in our opinion, the provision of Section 11B of the Act is not applicable. 8. Considering the fact that it is only an account entry reversal, we....